A very long time ago (five years!), I mooted the idea of train sets distilled down to 10 locomotives - quick to make, easy to play.

As we all know, I got distracted, and went and made some 3d-rendered monstrosities instead, but the idea is still interesting to me, and I'd like to hear what other people think. Specifically; if you were making a set of exactly 10 British locomotives from the 20th century (let's say first loco introduced in 1899, last loco introduced before 2000), what would you include? What would you leave out? It's harder than you might think...

10 locos? I make that 1 every century. I don't know steam that well, so I'll just list my ideas for the second half of the 20th century.50s: Class 3160s: Class 47 (yes, no 37)70s: Class 4380s: Class 5690s: Class 92

I think this an intriguing concept. 10 trains across all of time seems hard, but I'm interested to try it.

if you were making a set of exactly 10 British locomotives from the 20th century (let's say first loco introduced in 1899, last loco introduced before 2000),

Assuming you want to have both diesel and electrics, this does get quite hard. Only locomotives and no MUs is likewise tricky for the UK:

1: not sure2: a tank of some kind3: EF1 (alternately skip this and put in EM1/EM2 between steam and diesel)4: a pacific of some kind (lets be honest it's got to be an A4 in a UK set)5: class 206: class 47 (there isn't much space to fit a deltic in, which feels like a crime)7: class 868: class 43 (can't skip this one)9: avocet or 9210: class 58 or 66 (66 is the more rational choice but 58 looks more British)

5: class 206: class 47 (there isn't much space to fit a deltic in, which feels like a crime)7: class 868: class 43 (can't skip this one)9: avocet or 9210: class 58 or 66 (66 is the more rational choice but 58 looks more British)

Bang on. For two BR-era diesels, the 20 and 47 are the logical choices; they're different enough that players will use both, but general purpose enough that players will use both. A shunter or a Deltic would be too niche, while the 25 and 37 are too jack-of-all-trades to fit a second loco around.

The 86, 92, and 59 round out my post-steam loco choices. After much deliberation I sacrificed the HST in favour of multiple units because, as you say, they're quintessentially British, and the HST's niche is already well filled by the 86.

I was allowed MUs!? Well this changes things... I can go back another 20 years or so with these.1..2: Still don't know: some early experimental stock3: 2-BIL4: 4-SUB5: (hm should probably come away from the southern) 307/4156: 421/3097 (8): 5088: 4559: 321/44210: 375

I'm not sure of the usability of a set with just 10 trains. It's an interesting concept, but I'm not sure it'd work in reality. Especially if MUs aren't in to a large degree. As modern stock (beyond the 70s really) is MU based, rather than locos, but at that point you might as well just amend UKRS with some different stock, or stock that is new, there's quite a few famos things missing from UKRS, like Pacers, and then several new units coming out, such as DMU 195 & EMU 331, 334, 385 etc.

Why would a grf need both 331 and 334? They're both ~100mph, ~200 pax EMUs. No shortage of those already, waste of pixels IMHO 195 is just a 10mph-faster 158 or 165, same comment

I can't get 10. I can do 8 or 12. It's a hard challenge.* 4 fast weak pax, 4 slow strong freight; new one of each every 25 years* 4 fast medium pax, 4 slow strong freight, 4 small; new one of each every 25 years

Iron Horse was originally 20 engines, same concept of very limited engine roster, but longer time span (150 years where Pikka has 100 years). Horse....grew

Why would a grf need both 331 and 334? They're both ~100mph, ~200 pax EMUs. No shortage of those already, waste of pixels IMHO 195 is just a 10mph-faster 158 or 165, same comment

I didn't once say it needed anything. I was simply listing some that had come out since the initial release, which is what I made clear in the post...

Personally, I wouldn't go anywhere near a GRF with only ten (or around that). I wouldn't feel I'd get much use out of only 10 units. I use UKRS (UKRS2 with UKRS2+), and I regularly use at least 25 of the different units in there in games. There's a reason everyone is finding it hard to go down to 10...

GWR CityGWR Pannier (if this is too late, a 4500? Although it appears Churchward was modifying acquired examples to become Panniers long before the official 1929 intro date)LMS Black FiveLNER Pacific (I don’t care which)SR Q1 (to get the Southern in, but also as a medium freight loco behind the Black Five)BR 2-6-4T (not sure where this fits in to be honest... but a 6th steam loco seems right)204786/8759/66

As much as it pains me to say it (they’re my favourite loco!) I’d leave the 92 out. Playability wise, are they THAT different to an 86? Maybe as a compromise the 91 instead of either.

I’d have to insist you gave me another 4 slots for MUs. But I know you’re not going to!

The intention being each MU was a direct upgrade of the last. For this reason I’d also leave the HST out as its early intro as a 125 capable passenger train defeats the object of the rest somewhat. That would also force me to lean towards a 91 or 92 rather than an 86, which also made an incredibly early appearance, considering.

I think it’s a fair idea - be interested to see what you think of my roster...

SR Q1 (to get the Southern in, but also as a medium freight loco behind the Black Five)BR 2-6-4T (not sure where this fits in to be honest... but a 6th steam loco seems right)20

Apart from the advantage that you can fit an extra wagon behind a non-tender locomotive, is there much practical difference between these 3?

Edit: I should say, my point isn't that a set shouldn't include more than one of those locomotives, and - spoiler alert - I have more than 10 locos planned for UKRS3. My point is the reasons for including locomotives may be complex, and this exercise has been helpful for figuring out what the key structure of the set should be, what gaps need to be filled, and why.

SR Q1 (to get the Southern in, but also as a medium freight loco behind the Black Five)BR 2-6-4T (not sure where this fits in to be honest... but a 6th steam loco seems right)20

Apart from the advantage that you can fit an extra wagon behind a non-tender locomotive, is there much practical difference between these 3?

Edit: I should say, my point isn't that a set shouldn't include more than one of those locomotives, and - spoiler alert - I have more than 10 locos planned for UKRS3. My point is the reasons for including locomotives may be complex, and this exercise has been helpful for figuring out what the key structure of the set should be, what gaps need to be filled, and why.

Fair one. The 2-6-4 was a silly inclusion I split steam and the rest entirely, too, not considering similarities.

I think it's good to strip it back to basics. Those wanting the big sets will always have UKRS2. If we're going back for playability then inevitably some big names will miss out.

I note my inclusion of the Pannier, Stanier and Pacific is rather similar to the opening 3 locos in the original game...

I note my inclusion of the Pannier, Stanier and Pacific is rather similar to the opening 3 locos in the original game...

The Jubilee / Black 5 / Standard 5 has to be included of course - in fact it's the first loco I've drawn. The Pannier and the Pacific didn't make the first 10, but they've both been included on the second pass.

The 1900 start date I found challenging, because you don't get to start with the Pannier and the Pacific, and while - like you - I originally planned a 4-4-0, starting the game with only a top-flight express loco doesn't make much sense. For my 10-loco plan, I actually ended up cheating and pushing the J26 back a few years I chose the Robinson J11 to be a general purpose starting loco.

Leanden wrote:

Project Pineapple?

I do regret calling the 3d rendered stuff that, because if I do any Queensland sets I'll have to come up with a new name.

I'm not doing any more graphics in that style; this set will be 32bpp, but hand-drawn. It's just so much easier not being limited to Simon Foster's SVGA pallette!

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum